F35b limitations according to RN pilot.

a reply to: intrptr

Based on what, the word of a pilot that probably hasn't ever even been in the cockpit?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: KROandSOTV

As opposed to the Harrier, that suffered the same limitations off ship?

With a STOVAL/STOBAR carrier, ANY aircraft flying off the deck is going to suffer these limitations.

But the harrier is a 1960s aircraft this f35b is not, dont get me wrong i think and hope that the f35 will be the dogs bollocks but for the f35b not so it will be the bit that falls from the dog above its nuts.

The problem is that no matter what happens its the pilots who fly the things that will pay the ultimate cost of poor design/ lack of power, or any other flaws that are built in.........
We need to give them the very best chance of carrying out multiple missions not just one in foul weather and a crash into the sea on landing heavy or whatever.....
The aircraft has design limitations that's plain to see.......whether its worth the cost of buying and flying it remains tto be seen and will only be seen when its operationally employed now....its already been sold lock stock and barrel to the military geniuses we have running the show.......
Too many fingers in the pie have screwed the process......in too many ways if you ask me.....what ive read is not all that promising concerning the F35......they are trying to do too much with too little.....no one aircraft is the end all and be all of every service without drawbacks at some level.......period.

a reply to: KROandSOTV

When you consider the F-35 is just entering service and still ironing out the kinks, and the Harrier had decades of acceptable service, it doesn't sound that bad to me. If the Royal Navy operated the Sea Harrier knowing those same conditions were a difficulty, then I don't see why it could not do so with the F-35B.

This article isn't Sharkey's best work. It's a sort of yellow journalism directed at people who don't know better.

Sharkey is a bit of a maverick. He certainly brings an interesting perspective to the table given his history. What he wants is a conventional CATOBAR carrier with a capable air arm. I think he remembers his time in Phantoms and the sort of power projection possible with such a force which is many times over anything accomplished by the smaller carriers he later served on. Her Majesty's government has determined that the cost of a CATOBAR carrier (or modifying the current ships under construction) is too high for the value. Sharkey believes that the cost of a STOVL carrier with F-35B's is likely unjustified, and that while converting the hulls under construction would be extremely expensive, at least you would get better return on that money.

I actually completely agree with him about this. I think the RN decision to go for the F-35B was a mistake. I think the decision to build STOVL carriers instead of CATOBAR carriers was a mistake. F-35C's and conventional carriers would have enabled force projection for the UK in a way that no other platform could do. Whether that sort of power was worth the cost would have been up to the government, but I think the cost of the F-35B's and the STOVL carriers is prohibitive when you look at the capability offered. It's paying 3/4 costs for 1/3 capability. I don't believe it makes sense. (As a further editorial, I was against including the VSTOL requirement in the JSF in the first place, nor do I believe the Marines need the F-35B. They are still going to get them)

That doesn't mean the article wasn't mostly garbage though.

a reply to: KROandSOTV

And a STOVL/STOBAR carrier is the same as it was in the 60s. Deck length only gets you so far. Look at ANY carrier of similar type, using modern aircraft, and you'll see the exact same issues that they had using older aircraft.

a reply to: _Del_

I'd love to see the RN with CATOBAR ships, and serious air power again.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: KROandSOTV

And a STOVL/STOBAR carrier is the same as it was in the 60s. Deck length only gets you so far. Look at ANY carrier of similar type, using modern aircraft, and you'll see the exact same issues that they had using older aircraft.

Yes you are correct,but the harrier was not designed to fly off a carrier it was built for when we lost runways during the cold war.

The f35b was designed to take off from carriers and LHD/LHP now after reading what this gentleman has wrote (i dont know if its true)but he has made some serious remarks about its capabilities that can not be ignored for such an expensive piece of kit.

a reply to: KROandSOTV

And what experience does he have flying the F-35? Or what access does he have to the testing reports? This article is an opinion piece based on public information.

As I said in another post, IF this is a problem it will come out in testing, as other problems have, and a workaround will be figured out.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: _Del_

I'd love to see the RN with CATOBAR ships, and serious air power again.

Yes my Dad served on HMS eagle than moved to HMS ark royal.Loved running round them ships when i was a nipper sat in a buccaneer once greatest day of my life for a 6 year old.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: KROandSOTV

And what experience does he have flying the F-35? Or what access does he have to the testing reports? This article is an opinion piece based on public information.

As I said in another post, IF this is a problem it will come out in testing, as other problems have, and a workaround will be figured out.

I really hope so as i said the f35 will be one of the best war planes ever but i don't think the B will live up to its hype.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
I'd love to see the RN with CATOBAR ships, and serious air power again.

Not going to happen unless there is a drastic change in the political environment there.

The gist of Sharkey's arguments on this always seems to come down to the fact he finds it less than wise to spend so much on such a small capability when you could spend slightly more for a much larger capability. I tend to think that makes sense as well. You'd be able to put not only Hornets and Growlers (or F-35C's or B's) on a CATOBAR carrier, but also Hawkeyes, too. That enables so much more than the F-35B's alone will be able to offer. And the cost difference is almost negligible when you look at the costs over the service life of the carrier.

Having said that, I also think Sharkey is something of a political nut and that he would argue with himself if there was noone left to argue with. It's hard to take some of the stuff seriously even if you agree with his conclusions.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: crazyewok

Oh I get that. But even without that, the fact that if they scrap it now, it's going to take ten plus years to get another aircraft even close to this point, is a major point in keeping it going.

Well if they scrap now they likely will have to pay out another 50 billion or so too.

May as well pay up the extra few billion.

Still lessons should be learned that in future Aerospace company needs to be kept on a tight leash with budgets.

a reply to: crazyewok

That's why the Pentagon is going to almost exclusive fixed price incentive contracts.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: _Del_

I'd love to see the RN with CATOBAR ships, and serious air power again.

You'll like this video then sorry slightly off topic

a reply to: Zaphod58

Not to mention the take off weight of the F35 is significantly higher, meaning more bombs - 14,374 Lbs (minus airframe + fuel weight) which is more than an entire Sea Harrier weighs! Granted, the range of an F-35B is less, but only marginally and there is always A2A refuelling.

a reply to: stumason

It always amazes me when an acceptable issue on one aircraft is proof of how bad another is going to suck.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Zaphod58

Not to mention the take off weight of the F35 is significantly higher, meaning more bombs - 14,374 Lbs (minus airframe + fuel weight) which is more than an entire Sea Harrier weighs! Granted, the range of an F-35B is less, but only marginally and there is always A2A refuelling.

Oh right, will that be air to air from the tankers that has took off from the carrier or calling in thee RAF or other nations to refuel them,because if thats the case we may as well scrap the entire carrier and aircraft and buy the RAF some long range interceptors and a few more tankers.Be cheaper

a reply to: KROandSOTV

The RN rarely operates in a vacuum anymore. Single nation operations are going to be very rare in the future, so having a tanker on hand isn't going to be an issue. Hell, a C-130 can be converted into a tanker simple enough.

im not impressed at all with the f35 and the only thing i can see that is any good is the stealth abilities ,i know its old but the harrier was awesome even for urban combat zones with the ability to land in a small carpark ,so groundbreaking america gave us harrier 2,,so where for the love of jah is generation 6 harrier of death with cloaking,,why have we gone backwards,,vertical take off is a must have option in any fighter jet and im deeply saddened we have taken this over priced piece of american crap

a reply to: stuthealien

Vertical takeoff is useless. You can't take off with any useful payload of weapons or fuel.

Vertical landing is more useful, but even that has limitations. The Harrier required large amounts of distilled water for extra power to land vertically.